Personally, I think you might have done better by posting the 2H bidder’s hand and determining whether passing 2SX is a logical alternative…

Hello Richard,

The 2S bid was never doubled in the auction at the table. The director unilaterally inserted a double in rolling the bidding back to 2S X, down four.

Hi Paul,

First, thanks for spotlighting a hand replete with convention disruption (CD) for no other reason than to show the ridiculous time first TDs then committees have in adjudicating an impossible to assess hand which is supposed to include elements of bridge, but in fact, does not.

My solution, which seemed to work, since, at least in my court no one complained and when written up, with me hoping the decision would be used for precedent in similar situations (but probably was not, because of administrative sloth) and with every committee member’s vote and why on the decision recorded was essentially the following:

1. The specific laws pertaining to CD were by force loosely applied except for 2 important caveats:

A. Never in matchpoints was a greater than the one board involved number of matchpoints exceeded and in probably at least 90% of the times less than a full board was awarded with the other 10% of the time exactly 100% of one board was eventually judged.

B. The CDers were penalized either by reducing their matchpoint score or sometimes by adding procedural penalties to their downward adjustment during times when they tried at the table to slither out of what they were headed for, by then using unauthorized information (UI) to illegally right their ship.

That penalty, plus a scolding for playing a convention which one or sometimes both of them could not remember usually produced an apology and, if I remember correctly, I did not see the same pair in a committee again, at least one involving CD.

There are many political doves who wanted to treat offenders with kid gloves and give them a warning, but not adjust the board, but that was never true in any court to which I was a party.

The idea is, of course, not to be punitive to be mean or to change winners or losers, but rather to educate and insure steady progress in eliminating CD from occurring.

However, in other bridge courts CD is handled differently, but I have yet to see another way but the above as the best way to keep CD from happening in our tournament game.

Yes, in order to judge an appropriate punishment, keeping tune with Gilbert & Sullivans “Let the Punishment Fit the Crime” sometimes artificial contracts are chosen in an effort to restore equity to both pairs, but remember giving a very high windfall result to the non-offending, but not especially deserving pair does no one any good, especially the game itself, since that practice, in effect, penalizes a large number of pairs in the field who all lose points (at least on that board) to a random pair who just happened to be playing a pair who was committing CD.

I could go on with further description, but will not, unless someone asks me to.

Hi Bobby,

Any comment on the propriety of the opponent holding the spades asking all the questions about the details of the Flannery bid?

Hi Paul,

Yes, I read that case, and that type of unethicality is as common as pig tracks, which animal is the right one to describe a player who, by magic, entices his partner to lead a spade, or in some cases, may even bid the suit himself, knowing his partner is interested in that suit.

In defense of relative novices, while inexperienced at bridge, come from a background of playing different card games, like poker, where the object is to fool the opponents in any way one can, so it may become logical to them that any information which may help partner judge better (breaking tempo, asking about certain suits, showing values by body action, etc.) are, at least to them, legal as long as the culprit can get it by the unwary opponents.

The above is the major reason the ACBL should insist (but does not) that all bridge teachers emphasize bridge ethics in the first few lessons of their curriculum, just to let the students soon understand the unique aspects of our game, and to subtlely inform them that if they are unable to comply, they are learning the wrong game.

Meanwhile, I’ll just continue to dream away.

Paul,

This is a hand where the board should go 50-50 and then each side be assigned a half-board procedural penalty. That’ll learn ’em. So says the handing judge from Canada.

Along with Bobby’s suggestion to teach ethics at the first 1,000 Bridge lessons, I also recommend we teach players HOW to ask for further information. When I wanted to know about a specific bid, I asked “Please explain the alert along with all implications.” Before the lead or after partner’s face-down lead, I ALWAYS ask after an auction with alerts, “Please review the bidding excepting all defensive passes with full explanations of any alerts and their implications.”

Now, is that perfect, always-ethical behaviour? Probably not. In the ABSENCE of any questioning during the bidding, partner ‘knows’ I don’t have anything to ask about. Advantage our side, mitigated by the fact, he or she probably already knew that. Secondly, if I review an auction with one and only one alerted bid, I’m not exactly keeping it a secret what I was interested in … unless I do it every time. Which I do. But at a tournament, how is the unfamiliar opponent expected to know that?

It’s impossible to stay as pure as Caesar’s Wife so I can sleep easy with at least ATTEMPTING to get it right. Can’t say the same for all my opponents, which is why I stopped playing club bridge two generations ago. At the time I left, I think card-sharping was at it’s heyday locally. We’d managed to get the outright cheats out of our hair and to the East Coast, but the wannabe winners and LOL’s were having a field day. And not one of them probably heard the phrase, “Bridge ethics,” as they were learning the game or moving over from auction Bridge or even Whist (I am younger than Bobby, older than I should be, but the youngest in the room, usually). It would be at least nice for them to have to explain away faking having forgotten what they might have learned.

Cranky Canadian here. And out.